Big problem with revisions to WHO Proposed Amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) - May 2023

[sharon sanders]

There is a big problem with the one of the proposed changes in the IHR (2005). The problem is the deletion of a phrase bolded and in red below:

Article 3

Principles 1. The implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons based on the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities of the States Parties, taking into consideration their social and economic development.


more...

source: https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_fi...ilation-en.pdf


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The international organizations should be fully supportive of "full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons" as many countries (states) are not.

If we can not depend on the WHO to continue to promote this concept then what good are they? Honestly.....

I didn't read past this part because the entire document is flawed without this phrase.

In addition, the WHO can decide whatever they want but the bottom line is that "states" will do what they want anyway - like they do with arms moratoriums, nuclear development agreements, etc.

I am a little bit miffed about this because the UN organizations need to stand and promote "dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons" as a beacon of hope for billions. States have used the idea of "common good" to manipulate and trample upon the masses for millennia. It has been implemented to dictate and abuse by the powerful against the weak. Just look at the dictatorships of the world. All of them use the "common good" argument to force their will unilaterally.

Add whatever language you want to that paragraph but do not delete the phrase above bolded in red.

Only by stressing the individual's rights can we guarantee the rights of all people in all states against tyranny.

[JJackson]

The proposed changes are actually quite positive. At many points in the draft the term 'may' has been changed to 'shall' and the DG's ability to disseminate information has been strengthened, including to OIE. There are also new sections requiring sequence data and patient symptom data. What it still lacks is any form of sanction for States that have ratified but decide not to fulfil their obligation to provide information.
I wrote a post, at the time of the West African Ebola epidemic, which gives an abbreviated version of the key sections which can be found here https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum/...472#post630472

[sharon sanders]

The proposed changes are actually quite positive. At many points in the draft the term 'may' has been changed to 'shall' and the DG's ability to disseminate information has been strengthened, including to FAO. There are also new sections requiring sequence data and patient symptom data. What it still lacks is any form of sanction for States that have ratified but decide not to fulfil their obligation to provide information.
I wrote a post, at the time of the West African Ebola epidemic, which gives an abbreviated version of the key sections which can be found here https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum/...472#post630472

Any sanction is unenforceable. Is anyone going to make China report? No.

[Emily]

Whatever oher positive changes someone might see in the IHR, deleting "with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons" is ominous.

[sharon sanders]

No endorsement of either the W.H.O. link or the World Council for Health link is implied on this thread or this site. We are simply providing information for consideration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq-UWebtQPM

[JJackson]

I looked them up because I had never heard of this organisation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Council_for_Health

Its track record seems dodgy. Personally I have no problem with giving up some control to a non state actor, as the States principle interest seems to be in protecting their own interests not serving the interests of humanity globally.

[sharon sanders]

I disagree. Why does anyone think that a globally centralized group will make better decisions when local leaders display such bad behavior? At least at the local level the "regular people" generally have some recourse in some countries. This will never work in real life because the oligarchies will always favor their own interests first no matter what a global organization dictates. Just look around now.....

[JJackson]

Saron I am not sure I understand how the oligarchs got into this but as I see it the problem lies between the Nation States, the IHR and the WHO.
The IHR is the legal document, ratified by most Nation States, which empowers the WHO.
Although those States undertake certain responsibilities in the IHR they are unwilling to allow any powers to compel compliance or any sanctions against them for failure to live up to their obligations. I would like to see the WHO with some powers to investigate serious disease outbreaks within the territories of States who are not providing data.
Had the WHO been able to get into China at the beginning of 2020 we could have had earlier sequence release, knowledge of H2H transmission, asymptomatic transmission, access to farms of probable intermediary host being sold in the wet markets etc. All of which would have been valuable information in containment, vaccine and therapeutics development and the saving of lives. Under the current IHR the WHO can not either investigate independently, enter any country unless invited or release the data they are supplied, without the country giving expressed permission to do so, which leaves the WHO operating with one hand tied behind its back. I trust the WHO to act in the interests of global health more than any individual State, which may have economic or political interests which they wish to protect, rather than the health of everyone else.
Last time the lack of teeth in the IHR allowed China to play the Sovereignty card next time it could be the UK, US or any other State and we could go through all this again for each zoonotic emergence.

[sharon sanders]

I mentioned oligarchies because, sadly, most governments have this form of government now - in practice.

No agreement will make China not act in their own best interest. Or any other country for that matter. I wish we could have a perfect world but generally people act in their own self interest.

WHO, and the entire UN, needs to stay as advisory entities to the member states because they lack any real enforcement capabilities and because local goverments should be in control of local issues.

A centralized global authority would do what all dictatorships do. Dictate. Bad for personal freedoms. Look at the dictatorships we have now. They all have horrible human rights records. I can make a list if you want one.

The global elite establishment needs to back off.

[Pathfinder]

Governments near agreement on package of amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005)

Historic move makes world better prepared for, and ready to respond to, future public health emergencies

27 April 2024
News release

Reading time: 2 min (535 words)
العربية
Français
Русский

Español In the eighth meeting of the Working Group on Amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR), which was suspended yesterday until 16 May, State Parties to the IHR took a major step towards agreeing on the package of amendments which will be put forward to the World Health Assembly, which takes place from 27 May–1 June.

The amendments, proposed by IHR State Parties in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic to strengthen the international community’s ability to detect and respond to pandemic threats, will be further discussed at the resumed eighth meeting on 16-17 May with a view to finalizing an agreed package for submission to the World Health Assembly in May for its consideration and, if agreed, formal adoption.


“The International Health Regulations have been the cornerstone of global health security for decades, but the COVID-19 pandemic showed the need to strengthen them in some areas to make them fit for purpose,” said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. “Countries are grasping this historic opportunity to protect future generations from the impact of epidemics and pandemics, with a commitment to equity and solidarity.”

This eighth meeting of the Working Group on Amendments to the IHR (WGIHR) started on 22 April and suspended today. Whilst the process is being held alongside negotiations of the world’s first pandemic agreement to strengthen global collaboration among governments to prepare for, prevent and respond to pandemics, it was proposed in WGIHR8 that two separate Resolutions on the two processes be submitted to the World Health Assembly in May. Negotiations resume on the pandemic agreement on 29 April and continue until 10 May.

During the eighth meeting of the WGIHR, substantial progress on finalizing the package of amendments was made as State Parties reached agreement in critical areas.

WGIHR Co-Chair Dr Ashley Bloomfield said: “The work to bolster our global defenses against public health emergencies and risks, through agreeing a stronger set of International Health Regulations, reflects both the risks our highly interconnected world faces today, and the recognition and readiness of countries to ensure their citizens are better protected.”

Fellow WGIHR Co-Chair, Dr Abdullah Assiri, said the proposed amendments to the IHR are readily implementable and recognize the importance of equity in ensuring effective global response.

“The COVID-19 pandemic showed the world that viruses of pandemic potential do not respect national borders,” Dr Assiri said. “Amending the International Health Regulations reflects the critical need to bolster our collective defenses against current and future public health risks so people’s health, societies and economies can be better protected, all whilst firmly respecting and adhering to the principle of national sovereignty.”

The eighth meeting of the WGHIR will resume in a two-day final session 16-17 May to continue and conclude the work of the Working Group according to its mandate from the Health Assembly

The IHR have 196 State Parties, comprising all 194 WHO Member States plus Liechtenstein and the Holy See. These Parties have led the process to amend the IHR. The Regulations have been negotiated under Article 21 of the WHO Constitution. Any amendment will come into force for all States Parties, after a set period, except for those that notify the WHO Director-General of a rejection or reservation.


https://www.who.int/news/item/27-04-...ulations-(2005)

--------------------------------------------------------------

All GOP senators press Biden not to support expanding WHO pandemic authority

Republicans say WHO's new pandemic response treaty is 'dead on arrival'


By Julia Johnson Fox News
Published May 2, 2024 4:00pm EDT

FIRST ON FOX: Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., led the entire Republican Senate conference in calling on President Biden to reject agreements that would expand the authority of the World Health Organization (WHO) in the case of a global pandemic.

"We strongly urge you not to join any pandemic related treaty, convention, or agreement being considered" at the 77th World Health Assembly, reads a letter sent to Biden by Johnson and all 48 other Republican senators.

The Republican senators stressed that any such agreement would be considered a treaty, which they noted requires "the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate under Article I Section 2 of the Constitution."
...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/all-gop-senators-press-biden-not-to-support-expanding-who-pandemic-authority

--------------------------------

https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/WHO-letter-to-Biden-signed-5-1-24.pdf

[sharon sanders]

I still think this exercise is a waste of time. All countries will still act their own self interest. This is like every single arms agreement. Mostly governments do what they want anyway.

Does anyone think Texas is going to let some WHO representative on the dairy farms? I think not.

[Pathfinder]

Britain refuses to sign global vaccine treaty that would force it to give away fifth of jabs

Sharing of pandemic products seen as red line for many countries locked in talks

Joe Pinkstone,
SCIENCE CORRESPONDENT
8 May 2024 • 9:01pm

Britain is refusing to sign the World Health Organisation’s pandemic treaty while it insists the UK would have to give away a fifth of its jabs, The Telegraph understands.

The UK is firmly against such vaccine-related commitments and will not sign any form of the pandemic agreement that undermines Britain’s sovereignty.
...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/08/pandemic-vaccines-therapeutics-global-treaty-sovereignty/

[Pathfinder]

Governments agree to continue their steady progress on proposed pandemic agreement ahead of the World Health Assembly

10 May 2024
News release

Reading time: 2 min (509 words)

Governments of the world today agreed to continue working on a proposed pandemic agreement, and to further refine the draft, ahead of the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly that starts 27 May 2024.

Governments meeting at the World Health Organization headquarters in Geneva agreed to resume hybrid and in-person discussions over coming weeks to advance work on critical issues, including around a proposed new global system for pathogen access and benefits sharing (i.e. life-saving vaccines, treatments and diagnostics); pandemic prevention and One Health; and the financial coordination needed to scale up countries’ capacities to prepare for and respond to pandemics.

"During more than two years of intensive negotiations, WHO’s Member States have shown unwavering commitment to forging a generational agreement to protect the world from a repeat of the horrors caused by the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. “I welcome the determination that all countries have shown to continue their work and fulfill the mission on which they embarked.”

The Member State-led Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) was established over two years ago to take this effort forward. The Bureau of the INB, which is guiding the process, will submit its outcome for consideration at the World Health Assembly.

INB Bureau Co-Chair Dr Precious Matsoso, from South Africa, said progress had been made during this latest round of discussions on a wide range of issues contained in the draft agreement.

“We are witnessing history play out before our eyes during this process, with the coming together of all countries to decide a binding pact to protect all citizens of the world,” said Ms Matsoso. “This is not a simple exercise. This is the first ever process to develop a proposed agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. Getting this done means getting it right, and the INB Bureau is committed to help finalize a meaningful, lasting agreement.”

Fellow INB Bureau Co-Chair, Mr Roland Driece, from the Netherlands, said when countries launched the process two years ago to develop a pandemic agreement, they did so knowing they had set an ambitious timeline to reach an ambitious goal.

“This unprecedented effort by all WHO Member States was launched in response to an unprecedented global emergency – the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Mr Driece. “These sovereign states did so recognizing that great collaboration and coordination were needed in the face of pandemics. While negotiations have been challenging at times, all countries agree that the world must be better prepared for the next pandemic. It is not a matter of if a pandemic will happen again; it is a matter of when. We cannot afford to miss this historic opportunity to make the world safer from the next pandemic threat.”

In March 2021, heads of state and government from two dozen countries issued a statement of commitment calling for global collaboration to prepare for, prevent and respond to pandemics. In December 2021, WHO Member States decided to launch a global process to draft and negotiate a legally binding convention, agreement or other international instrument to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.

https://www.who.int/news/item/10-05-2024-governments-agree-to-continue-their-steady-progress-on-proposed-pandemic-agreement-ahead-of-the-world-health-assembly

[sharon sanders]

Sorry, but the elite cabal in each country is not going to allow an erosion of their power base. What should be going on here is a focus on $$$ and how to use it to gain international access to information, samples, etc. + plus reimbursement for losses.... Get the World Bank and IMF to organize some practical pandemic programs.

[Pathfinder]

Efforts to draft a pandemic treaty falter as countries disagree on how to respond to next emergency

BY JAMEY KEATEN AND MARIA CHENG
Updated 4:38 PM CST, May 24, 2024

GENEVA (AP) — A global treaty to fight pandemics like COVID is going to have to wait: After more than two years of negotiations, rich and poor countries have failed — for now — to come up with a plan for how the world might respond to the next pandemic.
...
On Friday, Roland Driece, co-chair of WHO’s negotiating board for the agreement, acknowledged that countries were unable to come up with a draft. WHO had hoped a final draft treaty could be agreed on at its yearly meeting of health ministers starting Monday in Geneva.
...
The co-chairs of the treaty-drafting process didn’t specify what caused the logjam, but diplomats have said vast differences remained over sharing of information about pathogens that emerge and the sharing of technologies to fight them.
...
Tedros, the WHO chief, said there should be no regrets.

“What matters now is when do we learn from this and how can we reset things, recalibrate things, identify the main challenges, and then move on,” he said.

https://apnews.com/article/world-health-organization-pandemic-treaty-720ae6bec876e8afb0b82649a5b046c8